House Administration hearing probes why California election results took weeks to call

The House Committee on House Administration on Monday examined why California took weeks to finalize some 2024 races, with members and witnesses pointing to the state’s vote‑by‑mail rules, lengthy ballot‑curing deadlines and same‑day registration as primary causes of delayed results.

Chairman Stile, Chair of the House Committee on House Administration, opened the hearing by saying the committee would “continue its oversight of federal election policies” and arguing lengthy canvasses risked eroding public confidence. “The longer it takes to provide the results of an election, the more voters can lose trust and become frustrated with the process,” he said.

The hearing focused on several state practices that witnesses said extend the time needed to complete canvasses in California. Witnesses and committee members described three principal contributors: universal mail ballots that generate a high volume of envelopes to verify, statutory windows that allow ballots to be received after election day, and extended signature‑curing periods.

Ashley Titus, an attorney in private practice in Sacramento, told the committee California’s procedural rules “impose numerous procedures that extend ballot processing and counting far beyond election night.” Titus said nearly 81% of California’s roughly 22.5 million registered voters cast a mail ballot in the most recent general election and described a multi‑step signature review that can require up to three levels of review before an envelope signature is deemed nonmatching. She said many counties permit a voter to submit a substitute signature as late as 28 days after election day.

Austin Gilbert, a campaign field operative and co‑owner of Right Choice Strategies, described how the state’s Voter’s Choice Act and centralized vote centers increased the number of ballot styles and the workload for county canvass operations. “California elections can be described in one word, slow,” Gilbert said, adding that centralized sorting, signature verification and processing often rest on temporary workers in large county warehouses.

Donald Palmer, chairman of the Election Assistance Commission, told lawmakers the EAC’s role is to collect and share best practices and said state laws drive differences in tabulation timing. He noted that California allows ballots to be received up to seven days after election day and a 28‑day curing window for signatures — timelines he contrasted with other states that permit shorter cure periods. The EAC plans to provide additional data on ballot curing in its 2024 Election Administration and Voting Survey.

Rebecca Nowacek, director of external partnerships at the Secure Families Initiative and lead of the Military Vote Coalition, urged lawmakers to consider how shorter deadlines would affect military and overseas voters. “When a military voter tries to vote but is unsuccessful, the most common reason is because their ballot arrives past the deadline,” she said, urging that policies allowing postmarked ballots or timely cure opportunities protect participation for service members.

Republican members argued the delays undermined public confidence and pressed for federal oversight or changes to state rules. Ranking Member Morelli said there was no evidence of fraud in California’s results, but supported exploring efficiency improvements and standardized cure deadlines. Democrats on the panel defended California’s choices as efforts to maximize participation and cautioned that some proposed federal measures would disenfranchise overseas and military voters.

Witnesses and members sketched possible reforms discussed at the hearing: pre‑processing of absentee ballots, deadlines requiring ballots to be in county custody by election day, limits on post‑election cure windows, greater investment in county resources and worker training for signature verification. Several witnesses emphasized tradeoffs between speed and access: measures that accelerate results could narrow options for voters who rely on mail or who are overseas.

Committee members submitted written testimony for the record and said members may pose additional questions post‑hearing. Without a formal vote or directive, the hearing concluded with each panelist agreeing to respond to follow‑up questions as requested by members of the committee.

The committee record will remain open for five legislative days to accept additional materials, the chair said. Without objection, the panel adjourned.